Balance of Food

Temptation of the Week: 'Authentic' Mexican Coca-Cola

Mexican Coca-Cola is supposed to be the cat's meow, the great alternative to those frustrated by the American version with high-fructose corn syrup. Used to be that you could travel to neighboring countries Canada and Mexico and you'd be guaranteed an experience free of high-fructose corn syrup.

Then, glucose-fructose sneaked its way into Canada; no one really explaining that glucose-fructose is high-fructose corn syrup. Lately, we've been hearing stories about Mexicans having to deal with American coke, er, Coca-Cola. And I've seen "Mexican Coca-Cola" that says on the label "high-fructose corn syrup and/or sugar."

NAFTA is the reason why high-fructose corn syrup has invaded Canada and Mexico. Free trade agreements do have some advantages, but the loss of sovereignty is always a bad side effect. The United States has a lot of power to force something into another country; that power is not as reciprocal in reality.

We live in a society where we can't find out whether the milk we drink has been treated with growth hormones. For consumers who want to avoid high-fructose corn syrup for any number of reasons (time will tell if the autism connection has much validity), they deserve to know whether they are consuming high-fructose corn syrup.

For those looking to cut down on high-fructose corn syrup, Mexican Coca-Cola has been a wonderful option while occasionally having a soft drink. The treat of Mexican Coca-Cola only works if you are drinking "the real thing" (yes, an old company slogan).

If your drink is from a glass bottle and says Coca-Cola and comes from Mexico, it's only real if the label doesn't say high-fructose corn syrup. Anything else isn't "the real thing."

Still wondering why regular U.S. Coca-Cola products are allowed to have the words "Original Formula," when no one knows that to be true.

The popularity of Mexican Coca-Cola should prove to the corporate folks in Atlanta that there is an audience for what Coca-Cola produced before the company switched to high-fructose corn syrup. I have two 2-liter bottles of Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola, another popular choice where available. The switch back to sugar would be the opposite publicity the company received for switching to New Coke.

The best rule of thumb is if the label doesn't mention high-fructose corn syrup, you should be fine. If you see the words "high-fructose corn syrup and/or sugar," place the bottle gently down and run.

"The customer is always right" and "give the people what they want" haven't applied when it comes to Coca-Cola.

This is a painful reminder that we keep needing to bring up: read labels. Seriously. You never know what food manufacturers are going to do.

Kraft can use Oreos commercial leak to promote breastfeeding

News outlets reporting on Kraft's controversial Oreo breastfeeding ad felt the need to censor the photograph to protect sensitive readers. The outlets chose to blur out the 20% of the exposed nipple of a breastfeeding woman doing what comes naturally.

They should have blurred out the cookie.

The United States is the one major country that freaks out over female nipples, yet high-fructose corn syrup was created in that country and its food policy works terribly hard to export high-fructose corn syrup to other countries. And yes, while a baby holding a processed cookie is offensive enough, holding a cookie tied into Kraft's insistence on using high-fructose corn syrup in Oreos is that much more disturbing.

BalanceofFood.com strongly encourages adults to make proper nutrition choices, but recognizes that free will allows us true freedom to choose good vs. not-so-good. Babies haven't earned that right.

Kraft tells us the ad "was never intended for public distribution or use with consumers" though the possible South Korean audience are much more confident in their ability to handle a partial female nipple. Taking them at their word, someone still set up a photo shoot, put the cookie in the baby's hands, and took the picture. And that picture sends a terrible message about babies and food marketing.

Advocates against marketing food to children who are tougher on that subject than I am point out that children can't process the ability to make good food decisions. True, babies aren't pressuring their parents to buy Oreos or other cookies, but "Milk's favorite cookie" in that context putting unnecessary pressure on newborn mothers and fathers.

The growth that babies experience between 0-3 years old requires extra care about their nutrition, not less. We have also gone on the record as saying breastfeeding is the best choice for young babies whenever and wherever possible.

If Kraft and Oreos wanted to do it right, the tagline on the ad would read something like:

"Someday, this child will enjoy an Oreo cookie for the very first time. But until then, this child should settle for milk … without the cookie."

Food companies pour millions into advertising while fruits and vegetables and breastfeeding get a tiny fraction of the ad time and space. Having a major food marketer push a pro-breastfeeding agenda with a sly nod to one of its products would be a win-win situation in the marketplace — provided that Americans get over their phobia of the female nipple.

photo credit

Canada focuses sharpest budget cuts on those who protect food safety

The good news is that Canada has a department devoted to food inspection. The bad news is that there will be fewer inspectors as a result of federal budget cuts.

The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture Canada will suffer among the worst hits in federal budget cuts by the Harper government.

In the election campaign of 2011, the Conservative budget promised $100 million over five years to increase capacity in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Politicians do break promises on occasion. When you offer to raise the stakes to protect citizens from tainted food, and you make the department that helps prevent tainted food a high priority for a deep cut, well that decision makes a significant impact on average Canadians.

Under the Harper government, a listeriosis outbreak in 2008 led to 22 deaths and 35 serious illnesses from tainted deli meat.

Canada has an advantage over the United States since it has a government agency devoted to food inspection. The USDA runs marketing and inspection of the same food, and as we've seen lately, the FDA begging for voluntary help in cutting down on antibiotics in the food supply is really sad and pathetic.

But if that agency can't be effective, especially given the increasing number of food problems in recent years, Canada's advantage isn't nearly as large as it should be.

Crossing your fingers that your food is safe isn't a smart government policy.

Previous coverage:

What a Stephen Harper government means for Canada's national food strategy

Canada's political parties have stronger food policies in their platforms for the upcoming election

Michelle Obama uses 'Biggest Loser' to push 'Let's Move'

"I will make a complete fool out of myself if it means that more children and families get excited about the idea of incorporating nutrition and fitness into their lives." -- First Lady Michelle Obama

You could argue that the First Lady being on "The Biggest Loser," a reality TV show, qualifies her as making a complete fool of herself. It's a whole lot better than Nancy Reagan and "Diff'rent Strokes." However, Mrs. Obama recognizes that this is a way to get her message out to eat better and exercise more, especially to families.

It wasn't a coincidence that the families were with the contestants as they met the First Lady in the White House. "1 in 3 children in this nation are overweight or obese. And ⅓ of our children are at risk of developing diabetes at some point in their lifetimes. So this is a major issue," said Mrs. Obama.

Michelle Obama was worried about making a fool of herself in working out with the contestants. But among the group, she was in the best shape of everyone.

"Michelle Obama is what No Excuses is all about. I mean, think about it. Who is busier than the First Lady, other than the president of the United States. This woman finds time to work out practically every single day. We all should be doing this." -- Bob Harper, senior trainer on "The Biggest Loser."

Clearly, the First Lady has time to watch the show since she knew quite a bit about the contestants. Then again, she pointed out that she works out harder after having seen the show.

Her ⅓ numbers gave us an unintentional parallel — get to be overweight or obese and you are heading for diabetes. The idea is to avoid that happening.

Mrs. Obama brought up the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award, where they get families for 6 consecutive weeks to "eat healthy and get active" with adults doing 30 minutes and children do 60 minutes of exercise per day.

The First Lady mentioned nutrition twice overall. Like "The Biggest Loser," this was much more about "Let's Move" than "Let's eat better."

Too bad Michelle Obama didn't stay for the next segment. Chris is 42 and she is a contestant on the show. We see her in a hotel room surrounded by food. We see her spreading mayonnaise from a jar on a cheeseburger, putting mayonnaise on a grilled cheese sandwich, chocolate and peanut butter on a banana, and peanut butter and mayonnaise on that burger.

"Literally these foods were calling my name. You know, all the stuff that I know I shouldn't be eating. But I'm just angry and disgusted. And because of that, I'm doing all the things that a person would do to somebody that they didn't like, except I'm just doing it to myself."

I was hoping Mrs. Obama would come out from the shadows and talk to Chris. After all, we didn't hear much about food and nutrition. Yes, children are heavier than they should be and not moving around enough. But this is all about what children are eating … and their parents, too.

Yes, her husband is the one running for re-election. But Michelle Obama is also running to remind people what she has done as First Lady, and to show a different side of the Obamas. After all, some may not like her husband, but some of those people might like Michelle more.

So it's no surprise to see more of the First Lady in media appearances not just because of the re-election campaign, but so Michelle Obama can get the word out more about eating better and "Let's Move."

Unfortunately, Mrs. Obama wasn't on the Colbert Report to talk childhood obesity. The theme was helping military families, which as Colbert noted that Mrs. Obama's two main themes are helping military families and childhood obesity.

This was Michelle Obama's first appearance on the program as First Lady. Given Colbert's emphasis on the ridiculousness of food and food marketing, she should find a way to go back on the show just to talk childhood obesity. That conversation would be more about nutrition rather than fitness.

photo credit: NBC

Iowa ag-gag law puts corporate protection over free speech and food safety

Openness and transparency is good enough for our government, but in some circles, not for our food.

"In a post 9/11 world, transparency is important for farmers and consumers alike. Responsible farmers take good care of their land and livestock and want to employ honest, hardworking people that have the welfare of their livestock as their top priority." said Iowa Farm Bureau Federation President and livestock farmer Craig Hill in a statement.

Iowa’s House File 589 doesn't really address those issues. The bill is designed to make it more difficult to know what is going on in factory farms. As for those consumers, it's a lack of transparency.

Iowa isn't the only state where factory farms are fighting back against those who want to know more about how our food is grown. Seven states — Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Utah — have plans in the works for similar legislation.

So what does Iowa’s House File 589 do?

Agricultural production facility fraud. 1. A person is guilty of agricultural production facility fraud if the person willfully does any of the following: a. Obtains access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses. b. Makes a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at an agricultural production facility, if the person knows the statement to be false, and makes the statement with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility, knowing that the act is not authorized.

So if you legitimately work in an agricultural production facility, and you are concerned about the practices where you work, if you take action, your employer will go after you for fraud that doesn't have to be true to be scary. Because somehow if you are concerned about the animals around you, this will be assumed from the start that you came into your job with the intent of disrupting the company.

One element that you got from watching "Fresh" was the number of chicken coop owners who felt like they couldn't appear on camera. So much is hidden from the process, from how the animals are treated to how the animals are processed.

Hill's statement reflects on "honest, hardworking people that have the welfare of their livestock as their top priority." That is what those who have been fighting for transparency want from the food system. If what Hill is saying is true, we don't need this legislation. Then again, they may disagree on the definitions of "honest" and "hardworking" and "welfare of their livestock as their top priority."

Amanda Clayton Michigan story shouldn't hurt those who need food help

You probably have heard the story of Amanda Clayton, the Michigan woman who won $1 million in the state lottery, but was still getting $200/month in food assistance. You may have been one of those who screaming loudly at your computer screen when you realized what Clayton was getting away with doing.

Back in October, we wrote about Michigan's plan to have food stamps receipients list assets in order to qualify. We noted that while homes and the first $15,000 of a car were exempt, those that had a good life before the recession were in greater danger of being denied help because their car might be relatively new, or if they own two cars. We were concerned the most about creating an environment where people who did qualify were intimidated into not taking advantage of what they were entitled to receive.

BalanceofFood.com has stood up for reforming food assistance to concentrate on foods that made more sense (i.e., not soft drinks and junk food), but also to make more money available so that all who need the help can get the help. Those on food assistance should find it easier to take advantage of fresh produce, especially from local farmers.

The poorest of the poor have difficulty affording nutritious food in our backwards government-subsidized corn and soy farm world.

The critics who use the Amanda Clayton story to justify reduced benefits for those in need miss the point. Fraud exists whether government benefits the poor and the rich. But we tend to focus on small amounts such as $200/month rather than hundreds of thousands on a larger scale.

And unlike most of the fraud that occurs among the 1%, Clayton got caught, and the justice system will take care of that case. In the meantime, don't forget about those who really need help getting food on a daily basis.

Chicken nuggets added to 4-year-old's lunch proves liberals, conservatives can agree on school lunches

While it's sad that food quality has become a political issue, you can find joy when liberals and conservatives agree on a food issue.

In this instance, both liberals and conservatives disagreed with the decision to supplement a 4-year-old home-packed lunch with chicken nuggets.

Conservatives felt the decision smacked of the nanny state and government intruding in the role of parents.

Liberals hated the idea of a reasonably healthy lunch supplemented with "nutritious" processed chicken.

They were both right in that the decision was wrong. And perhaps, this could be a teaching moment to prove that the sides of the school lunch battle can agree on something.

The school lunch battle has been intense enough without dealing in home-packed lunches. Conservatives wouldn't want interference with home-packed lunches. Liberals have bigger problems to consider.

After all, this is what the small child had in her lunch box: turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice. Sounds better than most school lunches.

Adults eat unbalanced meals and mostly do okay. Children need more balanced meals, but the difficulty stems from another element where liberals and conservatives can agree, though for different reasons: the USDA guidelines aren't a good way to determine whether a meal is nutritious.

Conservatives don't think the government should set standards. Liberals hate that French fries, tater tots, pizza, and ketchup become "vegetables."

From what we've heard, the 4-year-old child was missing milk from her meal (though cheese could have counted) and somehow ended up with chicken nuggets. And it's not like this happens on a regular basis, even in day care centers and preschools in North Carolina.

Wouldn't it be nice … if parents packed lunches for their kids each and every day, and those lunches were reasonably nutritious, and the kids ate most if not all of those lunches. Conservatives and liberals would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if parents gave their kids a balanced breakfast in the morning and a good nutritious dinner at night. Liberals and conservatives would like that.
Wouldn't it be nice … if schools would have well-prepared food to supplement children's lunches on those days and times where close to perfect isn't even a remote possibility. Oh well, two out of three ain't bad.

Despite the "Leave It to Beaver" mentality of some of the GOP presidential contenders, if that world ever existed, we don't have that world now. Our school children are suffering not just in terms of food but also the energy to learn and play.

Even if liberals and conservatives disagree on the solutions, do they agree on the problems? Until they agree on the problems, very little will get solved … even with chicken nuggets.

Latest school lunch improvements prove it's important who gets elected

The push back is going in the direction of improved school lunches. The announcement, with First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and celebrity chef Rachael Ray, should give supporters great joy and pride.

The first major overhaul of school lunch in over 15 years is cause for celebration.

Yes, pizza and French fries have a more prominent position in school lunches, thanks to moves by (mostly) Republicans. Funny how conservative politicians complain that government shouldn't tell people what to eat, yet they want government to make sure more of their French fries get served in public schools.

Well, French fries and tater tots. The move by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is more about potatoes, trying to find ways to keep potatoes but make them healthier.

School lunches can get healthier, but the potato will almost certainly be fried in French fry form or tater tot form. Yes, the potato is healthy when baked and boiled, but the chances of that happening in school lunchrooms are slimmer than having a Republican president push for more school lunch funding.

On the good side, school lunches will come in with reduced sodium, more whole grains, and more choices for fruits and vegetables.

One overlooked change is a change from "nutrition-based" or "nutrient standard" to a "food-based" system. Think fewer fortified foods and more real foods, a pleasant and very positive change.

We see the contrast of school lunch reform with a Democratic-controlled Congress vs. a Republican-controlled Congress. The positive improvements stem from legislation fashioned when the Dems were in charge. Classifying pizza as a vegetable and fighting for more potatoes -- under a GOP-controlled Congress.

In presidential years, the primary focus is on who runs for president, as it should. Michelle Obama has fought harder than anyone in power for these improvements. Every two years, citizens get to vote for who goes to the House and Senate. It does matter who is in charge of the House and Senate.

Temptation of the Week: Resist the non-existent message that government wants to tell you what to eat

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I'm tired of the government trying to tell you what to eat."
-- disgruntled conservative person

Amazing how a person can be tired of something that isn't happening, doesn't exist, and where there are no plans to ever start.

Yet when either Barack or Michelle Obama do something or My Pyramid becomes MyPlate or the FDA or USDA try to make sure animals are decently cared for in food production or try and prevent food safety problems or food-borne illnesses, someone usually grumbles and grouses and says something similar to "I'm tired of the government trying to tell you what to eat."

Trying to ensure a safe food supply is not the government telling you what to eat. Michelle Obama offering advice on eating better is not the government telling you what to eat.

The government does encourage you to eat American grown food through the USDA, and through farm policy and trade restrictions, encourage you to eat lots of GMO soybeans and high-fructose corn syrup. And those policies make it difficult to find alternatives. However, they still aren't telling you what to eat.

You would think telling citizenry what to eat would be more like a school lunch menu in a George Orwell book:

-- Salisbury steak (1 piece)
-- Mashed potatoes with 2 pats of butter
-- Green beans
-- Fruit cup
-- Chocolate chip brownie
-- Milk (chocolate or strawberry)

This would be the government telling you that "you must eat this" if somehow the government could enforce this and require you to eat it without outside options. As long as you live near a 7-11, you will have other options.

Those in the conservative spectrum could argue that the grumblers aren't being literal, and liberal hippie freaks are overreacting to what they are saying. When someone says "the government is telling me what to eat," how are we supposed to take that?

Let's try looking at their take from their vantage point. They feel like the government is stepping in unnecessarily to take control of a situation best handled by the free market. We've had that free market setup for about 30 years; all the health numbers from obesity to Type 2 diabetes over the last 30 years has proven to be a fail for that policy.

If the right argues that government has no responsibility, then those people should answer to why corporations and farm policy don't address those issues. They have responsibilities. Yes, they should make a profit (this isn't a George Orwell book), but with that function comes responsibilities.

"I'm tired of corporations selling us short, trying to cram in as much sodium and high-fructose corn syrup as they can into our food supply."

Not as succinct as "government trying to tell me what to eat." Then again, the truth isn't as "marketable" as political rhetoric.

(Editor's note: One year from today, we will either have a new president or Barack Obama will be sworn in for his second term.)

2012 braces to be rough political year for food advocacy

While the political eyes have been on Iowa for the last couple of weeks leading up to last night's GOP caucus (congratulations to Mitt Romney, who just edged out Rick Santorum), the upcoming Farm Bill hasn't had all that much attention.

Iowa has significant political influence since the Hawkeye State holds the first caucus. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a food policy that helps large farm corporations (ironically at the expense of the small Iowa farmer). The oddity of having a farm bill come up in an election year is not the smartest way to run food policy.

We are definitely looking at cuts in farm programs; the question is how much and will it affect those who need subsidies the least.

The farm bill is one of many politically related food stories to watch for in 2012.

Another growing question is whether First Lady Michelle Obama has slowed down her efforts to get us to eat better. The topic is hot in the blogosphere.

Mrs. Obama has been more focused on exercise, which is extremely admirable. Having a complete picture of what kids (and adults) should do is a wonderful cause by the First Lady.

Now I don't always stand up for the blogosphere, but in this case, I understand their concern.

Pushing exercise is a lot easier than expressing concern about the food supply, and a lot less politically damaging. The First Lady and her husband, President Barack Obama, have received significant criticism for what they eat, despite the fact that they are in better shape than most of the country, and their detractors are primarily severely out of shape (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, James Sensenbrenner).

Mrs. Obama, if your goal is to broaden the perspective of what we need to do, go for it. If you have been bullied into not talking about food choices because of political and pundit pressure, then you need to fight back for those who don't have the power to make a difference.

Finally, the fact that we are in an election year means food fights (no, not the Animal House kind) among Democratic and Republican politicians as they try to gain points heading into November. It will be a long year (with an extra day) — pace yourself accordingly.